Why a new thread? The replies stat for these mega threads are awesome and now lost.

Ramako

Dec 31, 2013 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper
(Post 6388979)

Why a new thread? The replies stat for these mega threads are awesome and now lost.

Threads that hit 10,000 replies go to the Thread Archive. I posted links to the older threads at the top.

WhipperSnapper

Dec 31, 2013 12:59 AM

Why is Chicago exempt?

Ramako

Dec 31, 2013 1:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper
(Post 6388986)

Why is Chicago exempt?

I have no idea.

WhipperSnapper

Dec 31, 2013 1:20 AM

The Chicagoans also started the whole excavation debacle because they don't dig there. I'm not suggestion it is actual construction but, it is an initial phase of the building process. It's more than site prep by any means.

caltrane74

Dec 31, 2013 1:24 AM

The previous thread didn't even hit 10,000 replies....

Still had a post or two to go.

Ramako

Dec 31, 2013 1:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper
(Post 6389010)

The Chicagoans also started the whole excavation debacle because they don't dig there. I'm not suggestion it is actual construction but, it is an initial phase of the building process. It's more than site prep by any means.

Agreed. Excavation is a major expense and integral to the construction process.

Chadillaccc

Dec 31, 2013 5:40 AM

Thanks for the new thread Ram! The top 10 are looking sweet :D Canada's really rocking it.

ue

Dec 31, 2013 7:24 AM

Hopefully we'll see some more projects from other cities added to the list in the future. But for the interim, I'll just enjoy the crazy mess of cranes that is Downtown Toronto right now :).

caltrane74

Dec 31, 2013 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ue
(Post 6389275)

Hopefully we'll see some more projects from other cities added to the list in the future. But for the interim, I'll just enjoy the crazy mess of cranes that is Downtown Toronto right now :).

I think Edmonton is the only other big city that will likely get into the list now that it looks like it will be a permanent over 200 meter thing. Other cites with a chance in order of their chances (IMO)

Yeah this list is all Toronto pretty much (9/10), and it looks to remain that way until at least late next summer when Telus Sky (Calgary) debuts in the top 10. Then Calgary will have 2 entries in the list. I still think we need another city in this list. I'd love to see Montreal or Vancouver somehow get an entry. It's not likely, but anything is possible.

Some interesting movements over the next 3-10 months.... The L Tower, Aura, ICE I and ICE II will all be taken off the list. Calgary's Brookfield Tower will move into the #2 spot, while Toronto's One Bloor will move into #1 position. Toronto will add Massey Tower, 88 Scott, and Eau Du Soleil during the same time with a couple of other wild cards possible, while Calgary will hopefully add Telus Sky.

By next year at this time, this list could read more like this:

1. One Bloor (Toronto)

2. Brookfield Place (Calgary)

3. Harbour Plaza East (Toronto)

4. Harbour Plaza West (Toronto)

5. Ten York (Toronto)

6. Telus Sky (Calgary)

7. Eau Du Soleil (Toronto)

8. Massey Tower (Toronto)

9. 88 Scott (Toronto)

10. Bay Adelaide E (Toronto)

Wild cards are the Eaton Center tower or The Icon... both of which are over 200m and would make the top 10 all over 200m. Either way, it will be interesting :)

Ramako

Dec 31, 2013 4:04 PM

^^^

That looks realistic. By the time the list looks like that, only One Bloor, Harbour Plaza and Bay-Adelaide East will even be out of the ground. The list will be quite tall for at least a couple years.

RyeJay

Dec 31, 2013 7:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travis3000
(Post 6389430)

Yeah this list is all Toronto pretty much (9/10), and it looks to remain that way until at least late next summer when Telus Sky (Calgary) debuts in the top 10. Then Calgary will have 2 entries in the list. I still think we need another city in this list. I'd love to see Montreal or Vancouver somehow get an entry. It's not likely, but anything is possible.

I would like to strongly disagree.

The only way I would feel okay about seeing Montréal or Vancouver on a skyscraper list for "tallest in the country" is if Canada's other mega-municipalities were experiencing slow construction cycles.

Both Vancouver and Montréal have a physical context that is worth protecting. This is not to mean that the Bow River and Lake Ontario, or, rather the parts of the aforementioned that interact with the cores of Calgary and Toronto are... ugly or less attractive.

Absolutely not.

There is a different kind (and by many, preferred) beauty in both Trawno and Cowtown. The flatter geographical realities mean, though, that building taller is not only easier to accomplish but is actually somewhat necessary in order to see what Mont-Royal could do, perhaps if it was in your city instead. I wonder what downtown Calgary would be like if it was nestled at its base? (Photoshop idea?)

Can you imagine Vancouver's mountains surrounding downtown Toronto?

I'm not anti-development; in fact, I avidly advocate for inward urbanism and for an end to suburban expansion (sprawl) whenever I'm faced with this topic amongst peers and other people I meet.
However: height isn't the only factor that makes a great city. (And... I know of some unpleasant cities that have many tall towers.)

I fully admit: I want Toronto and Calgary to reach for the stars with their skylines, partly so they may enjoy their smoother landscapes (contrasted by their mighty architectural ones); but, for Montréal and Vancouver, I want them to completely hold off on the supertalls and focus on achieving a consistent pace of mid-to-highrise skyscraper construction, to continue building cities of relatively modest heights as to more fully appreciate the topographical assets that would certainly vanish otherwise.

We also need to consider the street level and infrastructural challenges that arise when big buildings rise. Let's see how Toronto copes with this before we encourage other Canadian cities to essentially say "fuck it" and build as much and as tall as possible.

Gresto

Dec 31, 2013 9:33 PM

Nice work, Ramako.

What's taking 2 Queen so long? I thought that was expected to go through quickly?

WhipperSnapper

Dec 31, 2013 9:46 PM

Personally, I find a civic landmark of greater importance than what serves as a pretty background. That doesn't mean the peaks of the Coastal Mountains aren't important as they do define Vancouver particularly as marketing material. Thankfully, cities such as Calgary and Toronto have introduced procedures to keep tall buildings from overshadowing landmarks such as the Bow river valley or Nathan Phillips Square.

Toronto is coping rather well upgrading systems to meet the increased demand. Eventually, the new tax revenue from the new residence will pay for it and more. As they say, short term pain for long term gain.

WhipperSnapper

Dec 31, 2013 9:58 PM

Edmonton has been cranking out proposals since I started as editor with very little to show for it. There may be an opportunity for a new tallest (well under 200 metres) there but, I don't see the closure of the airport having that much of an impact on heights over the 140 metre range. The office and high rise condo inventory are tiny compared to Toronto and small to Calgary.

The only change I can see is the list dropping in height allowing more cities to be on it should things continue to be slow in Toronto.

Niagara Falls doesn't have the numbers to support another big hotel boom and the proposals are by a few small time local looking for investors to buy and/or finance everything. I don't share your optimism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74
(Post 6389332)

I think Edmonton is the only other big city that will likely get into the list now that it looks like it will be a permanent over 200 meter thing. Other cites with a chance in order of their chances (IMO)

There is a different kind (and by many, preferred) beauty in both Trawno and Cowtown. The flatter geographical realities mean, though, that building taller is not only easier to accomplish but is actually somewhat necessary in order to see what Mont-Royal could do, perhaps if it was in your city instead. I wonder what downtown Calgary would be like if it was nestled at its base? (Photoshop idea?)

Can you imagine Vancouver's mountains surrounding downtown Toronto?

Interesting you should mention that, I just saw this pic posted yesterday on Huffington Post:

Edmonton has been cranking out proposals since I started as editor with very little to show for it. There may be an opportunity for a new tallest (well under 200 metres) there but, I don't see the closure of the airport having that much of an impact on heights over the 140 metre range. The office and high rise condo inventory are tiny compared to Toronto and small to Calgary.

The only change I can see is the list dropping in height allowing more cities to be on it should things continue to be slow in Toronto.

Niagara Falls doesn't have the numbers to support another big hotel boom and the proposals are by a few small time local looking for investors to buy and/or finance everything. I don't share your optimism.

I agree with you that having an Edmonton proposal over 200m is unlikely for the time being. But with the closing of YXD, I don't think it's out of the cards for the mid to far term.

We already have 2 proposals over the old 150m tower limit (102 St Centre and the Edmontonian). The airport was only decided to be closed in 2009, a time when the economy was so-so, and it has slowly been closing down since, with the last plane leaving this past November. We've already seen the effects of this over Oliver, directly west of the core (think West End Vancouver or Beltline Calgary for those unfamiliar).

The Pearl condos, currently topped out, far exceed anything built the comparatively stubby skyline of Oliver. It's Edmonton's tallest residential building now and wouldn't have been built in that site at that height without the closure of YXD. There are already proposals starting to flood in for more tall condos in Oliver. Nothing over 150m, but baby steps. Oliver consists mostly of 70m-100m tall apartments and condos, so already a 120m condo sticks out considerably.

Edmonton is in a different place than it was 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago when the previous boom was in full swing. The city was unprepared for a new wave of demand for downtown construction the previous boom, but now it is taking full advantage and the core is in the biggest high-rise boom it has seen since the '80s.

Near-term, I suspect more 150-180m tall buildings in the former tallest airport overlays and more 110-140m tall buildings in the shorter overlays are in store for Edmonton.

DrNest

Jan 1, 2014 2:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozonemania
(Post 6390052)

Interesting you should mention that, I just saw this pic posted yesterday on Huffington Post: